race is really central to the whole thing

Thank you.

It's amazing how just about everyone on the progressive side who studies the issue comes to this. Yet it seems that the more it's emphasized, the more resistance one encounters.

Glad you made it to the mountaintop.

And don't forget that the Christian Coalition got its real start objecting to the southern segregation private academies losing their tax exemption in federal court ruling. Anti-abortion and anti-gay and of course being the shock troops against their own class interest for the corporatist tax cut wing of the Republicans, only came later when they lost the tax exemption at the supreme court level and the press highlighted their overt racism.

But it has always been at least 50% about race. That's what the Republican so-called southern (and wedstern and suburban; really white working class) strategy has always been about. Exploiting race to enrich the rich.

Race is very much the issue for southern conservatives, which is why this liberal is very much frustrated by the liberal/left's infatuation with Al Sharpton, arguably the second most well-known black Democrat after Barrak Obama.

Did you know that Al Sharpton, whose most famous act is falsely accusing four white law enforment officials of a rape that never happened (for which he was successfully sued for slander) and who has repeatedly sold Democrats down the river to support their Republican rivals is such a radioactive jerkweed that his 2004 Presidential campaign was financed by Republican dirty trickster Roger Stone? Here's a link to a Villiage Voice article that shows it: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0405,barrett,50745,1.html

Yet for some reason he has been treated like a conquering hero by Democrats, most notably when he was handed a prime speaking slot at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Who knows how may sex partners Stone and his wife slept with that night in celebration? (Stone, like so many conservative, family-values types has a most interesting sex life.)

It's bad enough when the Republicans use race to hurt us. It's utterly infuriating when we enthusiastically help.

Clinton & Bush II, both affecting country-boy accents (yes, each has some right to it, but each can just as well speak Ivy). In Clinton's case, it's the accent of a country boy who shares culture with blacks. In Bush II's, it's the accent of a country boy who most definitely does not.

The people of color Bush has employed have all spoken in very white ways. (Powell: "I'm not all that black.") So it's not about the skin, it's about the soul - the culture. It's about agendas: the "white" or "Godly" boy's agenda against the supposed black or gay or women's agendas. Bush's people of color are trophies.

Why does Bush II persist in talking in the most awkward way? Because it's the accent of a Klansman.

I am convinced that it is true that race is the central problem, but I am puzzled. I suppose this is a naive question, but why was it not possible to solve this problem by making the North more attractive to black people? Why does the North have ghettos? Dr. King, after giving up on his campaign for open housing in Chicago, concluded that ghettos exist because somebody is making money off the people who live in ghettos. He faulted the economic power structure of the city of Chicago. Unfortunately, our news media will never, ever criticize the economic power base of this country. That would be considered Communistic.

My reading of history is that racism and greed are the two worst character flaws of the American persona. Racism and greed are a poisonous mix.

Of course, it is race that drives the Republican platform. But the pernicious influence of race isn't a new discovery. More recently, Michael Lind wrote a series of articles about the problems with letting Southern racial and feudal/economic attitudes dominate the national discourse. Less recently, there's Lyndon Johnson's famous speech to Texas rednecks who bolted from the Democratics every time anything having to do with justice for black people was mentioned. He didn't put it that delicately.

Another aspect of race to consider is that black people in the U.S. are not truly a race. Genetics has been proving that the one-drop rule makes American blacks and whites remarkably similar, rather than separate, as the racists had hoped. Black people in the U.S. are an economic caste--used as a threat against jittery white people, who will do just about anything, including subvert the Constitution, not to be forced into black status. Barbara Ehrenreich called it fear of falling, I believe.

Without the South, American politics would be something social-democratic like Canada or Germany. One of the many weaknesses of Clinton was that he spent way too much time on please-Bubba politics, which bit him in the butt in the end, and we all have spent too much time and money on the South's endless tantrum about the end of its revered feudal and slave society. I remember taking a tour of the historic quarter of Charleston, SC, with a guide who studiously avoided mentioning who actually built all those grand houses. That sort of poison has long-term effects.

" notably the claim that government is wasting your money on vast armies of useless bureaucrats"

Is there no truth in this claim?

Wow! That is powerful!

I have come to the conclusion that American history is incomprehensible unless one is willing to ask the Marxist questions. Since most Americans are not willing to ask those questions, we are forced to point fingers at each other to explain why this is such a brutal country.

One of the reasons I am attracted to Obama, by the way, is that I went to school in Chicago and Obama knows the South Side. I am a contributor to the Obama campaign, and I plan to vote for him in the primary. I think that the overwhelming history of racism in this country makes it very important for Obama to be elected president.

The Iraq war has put racism on the back burner, but from an historical point of view, that is the number one issue.

If you take away the states of the Old Confederacy, American party / electoral politics would look basically like Canada's or Western Europe's -- especially if you factor out the distorting effect that Southern conservatism has on the national political discussion generally.

Though I see where you're coming from, the other big difference between this country and Canada or Western Europe is the extent to which the two major parties have made themselves quasi-official entities and have essentially excluded minor parties from American politics.

If you look at Canada or any of the countries of Western Europe, small parties play key roles in promoting new ideas and preventing political sclerosis.

Through ballot access and electoral laws that favor them exclusively, the two major parties have made this impossible in the U.S. And I suspect this would be the case, South or no South.

If you guys think that those same racial attitudes aren't found all over the country, you are fooling yourselves.

I agree with you that it is unfair to flog the South as the sole locus of racism in this country, and to suggest that simply cutting the South out of the country would lead to progressive nirvanna.  But I'm uncertain why you are charging Krugman with the South=racism paradigm.  He simply observed that the Republican party was able to gain political dominance in the South by exploiting the issue of race -- and that is quite true.  But of course, it is not just the South; voters in other parts of the country have responded to it, too.  (Don't tell me that only people in the South were influenced by Bush I's Willie Horton ad.)  It's just that the South is an easily-identifiable bloc.

You might want to read the book Foul Means by Anthony S. Parent, Jr. which looks at the rise of racial slavery in Virginia in the 17th and 18th Centuries from an explicit Marxist perspective.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Another aspect of race to consider is that black people in the U.S. are not truly a race.

While it is true there is only one race, the human race; racism is alive and well nationally due to capitalism. Poor whites vote against their own economic interests in hopes of gaining a leg up on the totem pole. They see their race as an opportunity and advantage in a white privileged society. The poorest white person can get a job in less than a week by showering, shaving and grooming themselves. Blacks who are unemployed enjoy no such luxury they can go for months without finding even a minimum wage job in America all because of racism. One study even has shown that white's with criminal records are hired far more frequently than black candidates without a criminal record.

Genetics has been proving that the one-drop rule makes American blacks and whites remarkably similar, rather than separate, as the racists had hoped

Anyone looking at the wide color spectrum of American blacks knows that they are the offspring of white plantation owners, overseers and any other white male who deemed it his right to sexually assault black females due to the pervasive racism that has endured and still endures...look no further than the Duke LaCrosse case. Had that situation been reversed the black male would have been tried and incarcerated for 20 years. Also the recent fight between black kids and whites in Jeno, LA where boys are being sentenced to life in prison. Racism is alive and well. Separatism is based on cultural values and the lack of justice and due process under the law. Not t mention the pernicious and pervasive economic discrimination that was most graphically displayed during Katrina.

Without the South, American politics would be something social-democratic like Canada or Germany.

The South is overt with their racism but racism in America is a national not regional phenomena. Corporate America and institutions practice covert racism due to EEOC but the racism itself thrives and survives within the corporate and social fabric of America as a whole.

the liberal/left's infatuation with Al Sharpton, arguably the second most well-known black Democrat after Barrak Obama.

"infatuation"? Just a tad bit over the top, perhaps?

You're confusing Chris Matthews' guest list with the Progressive movement and the Democratic party. An algother too frequent mistake.

In fact, if you look at the "red/blue" electoral map, republicans have exploited racial/cultural fears in every state they have won.
Whether it is explicit like Willie Horton, or implicit like cutting fat from govt (fat being entitlements, entitlements being welfare). Whether it's Hispanics in the mountain states or blacks in the south and rust belt, the message is the same: elect us and we'll keep our foot on their necks. Dont elect us, and face the unknown.

Oh great Krugman, should you chance to read this:

There are other, older versions – notably the claim that government is wasting your money on vast armies of useless bureaucrats.

What do you make of the arguments about "deadweight loss" that Megan McArdle, citing Martin Feldstein, has foregrounded in this regard? I believe the figure is that a dollar of increased taxes, overall, can be expected to cost 1.7 dollars in growth in the private economy. Who knows where these figures come from -- they fall on us, the economically uninitiated, like rain or hail, we know not why or wherefore -- but one has to have some sense of what to do with them.

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone

Corvid

I see your point. Thanks for the response. I guess I see a general Democratic tendency reflected in Krugman's discussion to say that, well, the GOP has the South locked up because of its racism and the only way Dems can win it back in any big way is by basically compromising and going that route, too.
.
I don't see any aggressive, outside-the-box thinking about how Dems can counter the GOP's racist appeal by, say, appealing to something else, some other basic concern or worry of southernerers, who, after all, aren't doing all that great economically.
.
Just as there is implicit racism in much of the GOP's right-wing message, I think there's a lot of implicit dismissal and even punitive intention when liberals inject the words "race" and "South" into the same sentence.

"as the pie shrinks racism becomes more virulent"

I am concerned about the same thing.

By the way, I would not want anyone to think that I am trying to distract attention from the evils of slavery. Slavery was not only inherently wrong, it was a playground for psychopaths.

That leaves the question, however, why it was so hard to get rid of slavery. If one follows the money trail, one will find that planters were not the only people profiting from slavery. Northern insurers, ship-owners and textile manufacturers were also profiting from slavery.

First I am reading it now. However, I thought you would find it interesting, given your post, since Parent explains the transistion for the use of white servants to black slaves from the perspective of the interests of the White Planter Class.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Re: This too was shown in the Gangs of NY where the Irish were signed up immediately as soldiers as soon as they came off the boat.

I never saw this film so I have to ask if it took place in the 1860s, when there was indeed a huge need for soliders and immigrants were often signed up right off the boat. Otherwise, this is not true. The Federal army was miniscule in the years between the Mexican War and Civil War and not very big in the years after Reconstruction ended. The country did not need to draw the poor into the military since there was plenty of work available in the factories (it just didn't pay very well, and could quite unsafe) and any excess population was drawn off to the frontier with the promise of free land.

I think the whole anti-evolution movement is rooted in racism. You can't flat out say blacks are inferior anymore and it just drives certain people berserk. I remember the racist literature from the sixties or seventies and so much of it featured African-Americans who were drawn to resemble apes and monkeys. Pretty revolting. I lived in Tulsa in the late seventies, and found a poster on a nearby telephone that featured a black man with extremely apish features and the quote, "He may be your brother, but he's not mine." Brutal stuff. Anyway, you don't really see those comparisons anymore, yet it's the same group of people who opposed the expansion of civil rights who now reject the theory of evolution. I think it's the only way they can express their race anxiety.

It is a local cliche that "there's no constituency for public transportation". Meaning that it's seen as primarily a concession to the dark and the poor.

Which is almost the same verbiage used when discussing the city evacuation plan in New Orleans in the years preceeding Katrina. No one 'thught' to provide evacuation transportation for the impoverished residents of the city. Planning was limited to those able and mobile to evacuate themselves, as "there was no constituency"for public transportaion to evacuate the city proper. Thus the school buses that set in the lots and the failure to provide basic humanitarian needs of water, food and waste removal. American citizens were just herded into the dome like cattle and the old, the young and infirm were all treated like animals and even referered to as 'refugees' due to the lack of a 'constitutency'.

"Maybe, you are unaware of the deeply moralistic values that drove the civil rights movement and unaware of how religious AA's are? "

Strange as it may seem whiterosebuddy, I do not consider falsely accusing people of rape, comparing Mario Cuomo to Hitler, supporting an ally as he fasely accused NYS Attorney General Robert Abrams of maturbating over the photo of a supposed rape victim, implying that anyone who didn't believe her frankly ridiculous rape story of racism—in short whipping up an acrimonious racial frenzy for the purpose of calling attention to oneself— to be my idea of "deeply moralistic values." It seems to me that the problem here is that you, like so many people, including a large number of notriously tin-eared liberals, are easily taken in by the words of charlatans and have a chronic inability to appreciate legitimate reasons why others do not see things the same way that you do.

Here's the question I'd like you to answer: If Al Sharpton is such a plus for Democrats why did the Republicans, especially Roger Stone who was instrumental in stopping the 2000 Florida recount, finance his campaign?

The grand irony is that no one has done more to discredit racism as a compelling issue than Al Sharpton. Of such stuff are liberal allies made.

If you have to say "who knows where these figures come from," and the source is a conservative columnist, the more appropriate first question is "why should we trust them?" If you can't come up with an answer to that, there's no reason to try to follow their logic further.

The term "deadweight loss" requires that you first buy into the conservative ideology that any money going into the government is wasted, and that money is somehow produced in the economy with no dependence on the services that government provides.

OIC

I have taken several AA history classes where this was discussed in-depth thanks for the suggestion.

When you say white servants, do you mean indentured white servants? The first Africans in America were also indentured. Does Parent talk about the physical stamina and greater disease resistance of the African making them more worthwhile as laborers as compared to the American Indian and easier to track than the white servants who blended in well with society when they 'escaped' their menial service?

Lerone Bennett in Before the Mayflower considers the rise of the white planter class in the mid seventeenth century as one of fifteen turning points in the history of US slavery, radical republicanism and the institutionalism of American slavery.

The problem with the "its all about race" explanation is that it doesn't explain Bill Clinton or Al Gore.  How could Clinton have won in Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky and West Virginia in 2002 and all of those plus Florida (but minus Georgia) in 1996?  Clinton was mocked as a drug-inhaling, bimbo-fornicating hippie whose best fried was black and who took a solidly liberal line on race.  Yet he was competitive in the South, long after it had become solidly Republican.

No one doubts that race plays a role in American politics.  But to say that it is the dominant factor seems to me to be taking things too far.

in view of whiterosebuddy's response, which in my experience is anything but unusual when Saint Sharpton is openly criticized, I'd say, yeah: Infatuation is the right word.

Infatuation is not the right word. Al has political clout. If you do not understand what affords him that clout it does not mean I or anyone else is infatuated with Al who does understand the political reality of shapton's constituency. Right now, Al is being courted by HRClinton to the extent that Obama asked him 'was it Hillary calling' when Obama began to address Al's annual group forum.

Perhaps, you need to become more informed about who and what Al represents politically and what votes he can galvanize to the polls before jumping to the errant conclusion that others are infatuated. More importantly you need to discern why those votes are needed and how that drives the primary motivation of all those who support Al politically, as opposed to being blinded by all the right wing Limbaugh/O'reily/Hannity rhetoric.

I don't think race is a factor at all. It's just a tool the power-elite use to create discord in the lower classes so they can continue to conduct and/or distract us from their ongoing class warfare. Race is just a red herring, nothing more.

The lovely thing about this is that the long-term demographics are all in the Democrats favor. Let the Repubs exploit anti-immigrant sentiment; it will bite them in the ass very soon, and indeed already has in some places (California, etc.). Same with gay rights-- the younger generation simply does not relate to this issue in the same way, and the GOP is losing them, over this and numerous other stupid things they are doing. Regarding the statement by a previous person that the Dems are tempted to follow suit with the GOP racism: they couldn't if they wanted to, because blacks are such an important part of their base. Dems can be too timid and too moderate, and they generally are, as far as I am concerned; but they/we can't adopt the right-wing strategy because that's not their/our base.

This doesn't mean that there isn't racism/racial politics in the Democratic party, but it can't play out the same way.

I understand the complaint about writing off the South as racist, and I agree that it is wrong to do so. But it is crucial to underatand how the GOP flipped the South away from the Dems by deliberately exploiting race; if we don't understand that kind of political manipulation, we fail to understand the whole right wing conservative movement. We (Dems) need to be just as good at this kind of electoral strategizing, but without the descent into the values of the gutter (ie, do or say anything necessary to get power).

A prime example of an opening for the Dems that I cannot understand why we are not using is the military vote: I think Dems should make a high priority to fund veterans care and the safety equipment for soldiers in Iraq both because it is the right thing to do and because there is an opening to drive a wedge between the military vote and the Repubs. (and by the way, I am completely anti-war, but veterans' benefits etc are another matter.)

It is obviously true that the Southern Strategy played to race, but that means that the rest of the country was at best lukewarm to indifferent on the subject of race. Playing to race did not discredit the Republicans with voters outside the South.

"The american negro has a unique place in history simply because they were enslaved and labelled property, chattel slavery, enabled the South to flourish."

It also enabled the North to flourish. Check out Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery by Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jennifer Frank. If you haven't already.

And like you've said slavery is still a big money maker. People are now starting to talk about the fact that black and hispanic 4th grade reading scores are used to estimate future prison needs.

"1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

That was an easy fix, just use the courts to hunt up slaves.

I love your column, Mr. Krugman.  Good to see you here.

The problem isn't race its deceitful politicians and their opponents who don't counter them effectively.

Many southern whites who fell victim to the class/race/"values" arguments are no longer drinking the kool-aid. Do you think white southerners who are mostly middle class and poor would back people who came right out and said they didn't give a damn about them? Of course not. The Repubs never really pushed their economic agenda on those southerners, they pushed the values/religious aspect and that's all it took. Now those same people see who's chasing teenage boys around, they see who never did that "faith based thing", they see who's on the take, they see who's doing number 4 in the bathroom stalls.

The only reason Dems lost the south is because they failed to tell the truth. They failed to hit drunk driving coke addict alcoholics who never were successful in business where it hurt. Do you honestly believe that if all dems went on about (talking points?) was how GW was a convicted DUI cokehead moron that people wouldn't pick up on it? Cmon.

Self-interest rules the day. I've never met anyone that hated another race more than they loved themselves or wanted to do well for themselves, although I know there are a few of them out there. A bunch of fake holy roller politicians went out there and appealed to the group they needed the only way they could and won. This isn't 1958. Do you really think Repubs got those people because they hate/fear blacks? They sold them a false morality and old american dream that many uneducated working class people grew up believing in. They waved flags and went to church. They changed poll locations and rigged machines. They voted in democratic primaries and brought fake voter fraud charges.
They didn't win the South as much as dems lost it. The only people I consistently see falling into that tax cut cock and bull are the wealthy and the wannabe wealthy aka the poor who don't want to see themselves as poor/middle class.

Its funny how you can remember Reagan's Welfare Queens stuff and the contract with America welfare reform BS but we can't remember when the Dems pushed back with "most people on welfare are white" or "its FDR's great safety net". Did that response even happen?

All very true. But then again, don't ever forget the investment that the Southern states made in pushing racism and racist propaganda.

Back in WWI the Southern States were just rabid to ensure that troops overseas were segregated and sent propaganda over to France to dissuade French people from associating with blacks, including that they had tales. The KKK may have rose to national prominence, but they originated in the south, and southern states promoted racism at every opportunity. They were not content to allow two solitudes. They aggressively promoted their agendas and views and never let up.

Without the South to inject hatred into the American mainstream, would northern racism have been as strong or virulent?

Republicans exploit race issues everywhere and always. It works best in Southern and Western States because they are less densely populated. Atlanta and Phoenix just aren't big or blue enough to deliver Georgia and Arizona. 

1) I would happily throw Bush and Giuliani to the wolves. Whether Sharpton is worse or better is utterly beside the point. The point is that voters dislike him for reasons that make perfect rational sense.
2) It is completely unnecessary to demonize Sharpton. He's done that just fine all by himself. The reason the Republicans paid for his presidential campaign is because they know that.
3) I do not recall Giuliani reviling anyone who got a broomstick shoved up his ass by crazy cops. I do remember a report that the cops shouted "It's Giuliani time!" while doing it and that that report later turned out to be false.
4) What exactly do Elian Gonzales or Terry Schiavo have to do with the fact that Sharpton is a lying sack of shinoloa?

If anyone is wondering why Rush Limbaugh & Co. have been able to paint liberals as crazy, this is a pretty good example right here.

It's just like Seinfeld. Nobody ever learns anything.

Why does the North have ghettos? Dr. King, after giving up on his campaign for open housing in Chicago, concluded that ghettos exist because somebody is making money off the people who live in ghettos. He faulted the economic power structure of the city of Chicago.

One could argue, I think that the most ghetto-ized parts of the United States are the suburbs and exurbs.  And, of course, people are making money off the whites who fled to them, too.  Whole sectors of the real estate/mortgate industry capitalized on "busting" neighborhoods and playing on fears to first drive prices down in busted neighborhoods and then driving them up again as middle class blacks bought houses previously owned by working class whites. Ghettos are as much created by people moving out as they are by people moving in...  and practices such as redlining have always had a racial component to them.  I'm thinking that we're going to see the current mortgage crisis as yet another manifestation of racial manipulation when we finally get around to analyzing this (something too hard to do when it's going on, methinks).

An interesting take on this in the South is Kevin Kruse's book, White Flight: The Strategies, Ideology, and Legacy of Segregationists in Atlanta. The link behind the title takes one to a recorded presentation at Emory University.  Worth a listen, MHO.  Of course white flight was/is a national phenomenon, some might argue an international one. 

aMike

Off-topic but I can't resist because I want to throw it over to you for your own private thought since you obviously have interest in the related issues: a lot of the E.U. has the reverse: their 20th/21st-century ghettoes are suburban, the wealthy & elite are in the city centers. This has also happened to near completion in New York City now, with Manhattan for the wealthy & elite, lower income and the few ghettoes remaining in the outer 4 boroughs, larger racial ghettoes over the city border in neighboring cities like Yonkers and Mt. Vernon. One cannot avoid this one urban planning conclusion: this happened because cheap and affordable mass transit has been available in those pl